Full Aeroelastic Model Testing for Examining Wind-Induced Vibration of a 5,000 m Spanned Suspension Bridge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental investigation on wind-induced vibrations of a suspension bridge with ultimate main span length, including flutter and buffeting. Since the upper limit of a suspension bridge’s main span can reach more than 5,000m based on strength and weight of steel main cables, a feasible prototype with a span arrangement of 2,000m+5,000m +2,000m has been proposed. In order to improve flutter stability, a twin box girder has been designed with a 40m slot in center and two 20m wide decks suspended by four main cables. Its full aeroelastic model was designed and manufactured with the geometrical scale of 1:620, and the wind tunnel testing was carried out under smooth flows and turbulent flows for different angles of attack. A big difference in critical flutter speed was found between the proposed slotted girder and corresponding slot-sealed girder, which verifies the necessity of a widely-slotted twin box girder for a super-long suspension bridge. Among three angles of attack, the critical flutter speed under smooth flow has the maximum value of 80.9 m/s at -3° and the minimum value of 51.4m/s at 3°. On-coming turbulence will not only cause buffeting responses but also influence the critical flutter speed in an unfavorable way.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it